Phil's Occasional Blog

Taking the....

... dosh.

Peter the Profligate Luff, in another desperate attempt to make himself appear squeaky clean, digs his own grave:

his claims over the past four years have included £2,600 for redecorating the office in his Worcester home, £900 for replacing an exterior door, £428 for roof repairs and £243 spent on replacing a window.

He said: “It seems reasonable to me that a maintenance cost is something I would claim for – to claim for enhancements would be wrong.”

Legitimate or not?

It's his home, but what proportion of its upkeep should be allowed against expenses?

Is the office used solely for his parliamentary duties, or is it multi-purpose? Were the roof repairs directly over the office? Was the door to the office? Was the window in the office?

We're not told, and should have been. Bad reporting yet again, Worcester News.

The comments to the article are worth a read. There are, thank god, a few smart people left in Worcester.

Logik's comment sums it all up:

"Here is the test of reasonableness as far as I am concerned. Had you had to fund all this out of your own pocket, would you have bought the same items and would you have spent the same amount of money. If not then the cost to the taxpayer is unjustifiable."